Comparing Cranberry to Mt. Lebanon

Recently, it has become popular to compare Mt. Lebanon with Cranberry, especially in the debate over turf and grass. The grass field folks want to know why we can't be more like the neighbors to the north and have awesome grass fields. My initial reaction is that Cranberry has a better understanding of what recreation means to a community and hase invested heavily in field spaces over the last 10 years. However, the analysis goes much deeper than that. So, before the comparison between Lebo and Cranberry gets any further out of hand, let's address some facts.

Lebo has 1 municipal field (Bird) that can be used for regulation soccer, football and lacrosse games. If we add Jefferson and Mellon to the equation, we have 3. I hate adding the HS to the equation because it is primarily used for HS sports and can't really be considered as part of the inventory, but to keep all of the doubters happy let's throw it in there for a grand total of 4 full sized fields.  Each of the above grass fields is used by multiple groups and multiple sports year round. In other words, they are not dedicated.  In Lebo, we also play lacrosse, soccer, football, field hockey, and of course baseball on our baseball fields. All year long.

On the other hand, Graham Park in Cranberry alone has 7 full size lacrosse/football/soccer fields.  Of this inventory, 3 are dedicated to football and lacrosse (because they are played in different seasons) and 4 are dedicated to soccer. Graham Park's 5 baseball fields are dedicated solely for baseball.

North Boundary Park in Cranberry has 3 soccer fields (including the Giant Eagle Soccer Field) and an American Legion baseball field.

Community Park in Cranberry has 5 lighted baseball fields, a lighted football field, and 2 multisport practice fields.

To be fair in our comparison, the Seneca Valley HS campus has a turfed stadium, 2 additional baseball fields and 3 more multipurpose grass fields, but I'm not sure the folks from Cranberry even venture over to Jackson Twp to use them.  If we include the 4 multipurpose fields at SVHS, that gives Cranberry a total of 17 multipurpose fields, or 13 if we leave out the HS campus.

The 7 fields at Graham Park are subject to strict schedule of rest and use.  They have that luxury. In fact, I think a number of the Graham Park fields are currently closed until Fall. There are plenty of other fields to handle the demand.

In case you're wondering, Cranberry's population in 2010 was just over 28,000.

So, if you consider all of the above, it is very easy to understand why Cranberry's 13 grass fields are in such wonderful condition for the dedicated seasons in which they are used, while our 3 fields are tasked with accommodating every sport over 12 months for the same size community.

Misconceptions Regarding the Turf Proposal

A record number of people viewed this site yesterday, and I’m sure most of them don’t agree with my position on the turf proposal.  Nevertheless, I’m glad you’re reading because it gives me the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about the proposal.

First, it’s not mine.  I support it, but it’s not mine.  

Instead, the proposal had its genesis following a variety of meetings involving a diverse group of residents, and many of these meetings took place long before I got involved.  Following some of the more recent meetings, it was determined that if we were ever going to address our field shortage, we would need to do so proactively.  Moreover, many people felt that the YSA was best suited to do the legwork to put this proposal together.  In fact, we were encouraged to do so by members of the Commission.  I remember quite clearly a December Saturday morning meeting with a Commissioner at Uptown Coffee, followed by an email from this Commissioner in which he summarized some of our discussion points.  The email summarized our meeting as follows (the words are his, the emphasis is mine):

**The need for field upkeep, improvements and additional fields are essential to youth programs.

**The youth sports group needs to get organized with representatives from each sport to represent their views to the commission and the school board.  I will enable them to present to the commission their views.  This is where a plan can be established and positive plans can be implemented.

**The municipality has the technologies and the expertise to establish a sustainable plan to make the fields usable throughout the year.

** The maintenance of the fields should be in the operating budget and should include improvements such as drainage, turfgrass improvements, and additional fields.  I mentioned that this idea was beneficial to the municipality as a whole and for the future sustainability, viability and desirability of Mt. Lebanon.

** Artificial turf was discussed as a solution to the wear and tear of turfgrass fields.  Full turfing was more desirable than partial turfing.

** I will do what is necessary and responsible to help to resolve the problem that exists.

** We discussed the consolidation of the many youth sport groups, their buying power and economies of scale.

The Commissioner was Matt Kluck.

After this meeting, and in light of the points made by Commissioner Kluck and other Commissioners, we felt it was in our collective best interest to put our heads together to prepare a proposal for the improvement of our field spaces.  Like the Commission itself proclaimed at the Town hall meeting, it was the overwhelming opinion of the folks involved that our fields are old, deteriorating, not dedicated to single sports, over used and increasingly expensive to maintain.  This was reiterated by the many new folks who joined the discussion at the Town Hall meeting on Rec options.  


As many of you know, previous efforts to develop grass fields at McNeilly were rejected last Fall, so ultimately we concluded that a turf proposal was the way to go.  Interestingly, if you refer to some of the materials cited by Mr. Cannon in his recent proposal you will see similar conclusions.  Specifically, many experts say that if you have fields that are used by multiple sports/events all year long and if you are unable to allow periods of rest without cutting practice and game time it is responsible to consider turf.

Over the next several months, the members of the YSA (which acts by and through the representatives appointed by its member associations), met with turf companies who traveled to Mt. Lebanon to examine and evaluate our field spaces – all of them.  At this point in the process, many believed that Mellon was the best candidate for turf.  It is centrally located and is contained in an existing campus environment.  It is large enough to accommodate multi-sport use and frankly it was and remains in awful condition.  Unfortunately, the notion of marrying the municipality together with the school district to improve a field on school property was met with such resounding opposition we decided to examine other alternatives.  Enter Wildcat and Middle. 

After several weeks of reviewing aerial maps, surveys, and returning to Mt. Lebanon for additional meetings and analysis, the turf companies submitted their materials and their individual bids.  Most of these bids are accompanied by detailed costs estimates, material safety data sheets, research articles, information regarding recycling programs, environmental issues, warranties and much more information that recent objectors have suggested that we don’t have or have not considered.  (Trust me, we have it and we are prepared to address every issue.)  At the same time, Jordan Halter conducted a detailed analysis of the field space and the existing field permitting process and the end result was the proposal that was submitted to the Commissioners.

A second misconception is that this is simply a "want" and there is really no "need" for a multi-use turf field.  I think it warrants repeating that the sports associations are made up of close to 3,000 children and their families.  The interscholastic athletic programs at the middle and high schools add significantly to that number.  As many of these families will tell you (and did at the Town Hall meeting) our fields are failing fast.  More importantly, they are failing from overuse.  Overuse caused by an increase in sports and participants that did not exist when our current field inventory was planned and built.  The municipal and school fields cannot accommodate all of the athletes that are trying use them.  Baseball fields are used for other sports, and this ultimately adds to the problem.  Our limited multisport fields are used so frequently that they simply have no time to recover.  The problem reached a new low in the last year when several sports associations spent thousands of dollars to rent field space in other communities.  And even this week, the reality of our situation is becoming even more dire as the process of field allocation for Fall sports commences.  Some sports are now considering the unfortunate decision of cutting historically popular programs because there simply are not enough field slots to go around.  By any standard, that demonstrates a need for additional multisport field space and time slots year round.

A final misconception is that we are all about turf.  Nearly everyone that I have spoken to on this topic (including me) would undoubtedly prefer to host every game or practice on a well-maintained, safe grass field.  Contrary to what you may read, I am NOT a turf junkie.  Like the NFL players referenced in the survey supplied by Mr. Cannon, I too would prefer to play on a “dedicated” field of professionally manicured natural grass.  Unfortunately, we don’t have that luxury.  I can only assume that those same NFL players would much prefer a state-of-the art turf facility over the mud craters of Mellon in the Fall or the rock hard dirt of Bird in the Summer.  So would our residents.

The other night Mr. Cannon responded to a question from Mr. Brumfield stating that he (Mr. Cannon) would  similarly not support spending a $1 million on new grass fields. I chuckled because that would have been a much shorter presentation with only one PowerPoint slide.  If that's your perspective, then the debate really isn't even about turf.  However, it certainly makes for much better theater to attack the turf plan (and its supporters) as being bad for the environment, dangerous for kids, etc than it is to publicly admit that you just don't want to spend the money.  


I agree with Commissioner Brumfield when he stated that if you don’t start from the premise that we have a “need” for field space, then you are coming at the turf debate from an entirely different angle.    The need is there and the need is real.  We are prepared to demonstrate this as the discussion continues.  I have already offered to do so for the anonymous folks who have called me a liar, but as expected they all fell silent.  This is not my battle, believe me. There are many, many people in our community who support this effort and we are prepared to move forward.  

Commission Discussion Meeting, July 23

Tonight's Commission Discussion Meeting (6:15pm - 8:00pm) will touch on two issues that might be of interest: (1) Robb Hollow athletic field options and (2) turf information to be provided by Matt Kluck.  I assume the first item will address Commissioner Fraasch's proposal to build a field in Robb Hollow.  I don't know what the second item entails, but Commissioner Kluck has already publicly voiced his objection to both turf and a Rec bond.

Feel free to attend and listen.  Citizen's comments are welcome at the start of the Commission's Regular Meeting @ 8:00.

The Facts About Injuries and Turf

This short video summarizes the results of a study conducted by Penn State's Center for Sports Surface Research, which falls under the College of Agricultural Studies.  I am pretty confident that these researchers have no predisposition in favor of synthetic turf.   In fact, they would probably be more predisposed to natural grass of the quality found at their own Beaver Stadium.  More importantly, this study was funded by the Center itself, and not by (or conducted for) a synthetic turf company or natural grass sod farm. The results of this study speak for themselves.

The Facts about Heat and Artificial Turf

Recently, much has been said and written about artificial turf and warm temperatures.  This issue has received even more attention given the recent spell of unseasonably warm temperatures.  No one can really deny the obvious heat generated by artificial turf on abnormally hot days.  However, like everything else in the turf debate, it is critically important to conduct an eyes-wide-open, fair analysis of the perceived problem.    First, we don't live in Texas, Florida, Arizona or even southern California, so we must take an honest look at how the heat actually impacts our outdoor activities

Let's look at the facts about warm weather in Pittsburgh over the last 30 years, as published by the NOAA's National Weather Service:

The average annual HIGH temperature is 60.7 degrees.

The average HIGH temperatures in June, July and August are 79.1, 82.5 and 81.4, respectively.

The average annual number of days with a HIGH of 90 degrees or above is 7.5.

The average number of days in June, July and August with a HIGH of over 90 degrees is 1, 3 and 2.5, respectively.

Temperatures get above 100 in July ONCE every 5 years.

Temperatures get above 100 in August ONCE every 10 years.

The most intense heat wave experienced in Pittsburgh was from July 8-15, 1936 when the daily temperatures were 95, 101, 101, 94, 98, 93, 102 and 91.

On the other hand:

The average annual number of days with a HIGH below 32 degrees is 32.

The average monthly precipitation in June, July and August is 4.3 in., 3.83 in., and 3.48 in., respectively.

The average annual precipitation is 38.19 in.

The average annual number of days with precipitation in excess of .01 in. is 151.2.

The average annual number of days with precipitation in excess of  .10 in. is 83.1.

The average annual number of days with precipitation in excess of .50 in. is 24.3.

The average annual number of days with precipitation in excess of 1.0 in is 5.9.

The average number of days in June, July and August with precipitation in excess of .10 in is 7.9, 6.8 and 5.8.

What do these 30 year statistics tell us?  Living in Pittsburgh it is considerably more likely that it will rain in June, July and August than it is that the High temperature will exceed 90 degrees.  In fact, on average each year, we will have about 143 more days with rain than we will have days with a temperature of over 90 degrees.  It is about 4 times more likely that that High temperature will be below 32 than over 90 degrees.  

So, if you're asking me to choose between not playing on one of the 8 days above 90 degrees or not playing on one of the 151 days that it will rain, I'm certainly going to choose the former.  This analysis further underscores the significant increase in playing time that would be afforded to our community with the addition of turf.  Even if we imposed a strict "No Play Over 90" policy to the turf, we would still experience far fewer cancellations than we would rain outs on a grass surface.

 

Next, it is important to understand that playing games and practicing in the heat have always required some element of time management.  For example, the student-athletes who use the HS turf in the late Summer months for football, soccer and field hockey training generally do so early in the morning and later in the day to avoid the more extreme heat of the day.  That's just good common sense.

Don't Blame Youth Sports for the Pool Problems

A number of folks who like to criticize youth sports have a short memory.  First, the youth sports associations came out last year in full support of the Miller bond proposal that would have provided funds for both field improvements (either at McNeilly or elsewhere) and the swimming pool.  This proposal failed because it did not receive the support of Commissioners Kluck and DeIulius.  Had that plan been approved, the pool work may have been completed by this point, not to mention  the efforts to improve our fields.

In my more recent meetings with Commissioner Fraasch regarding fields and parks, I have (on several occasions) suggested that the $1.3 million in unassigned funds be applied to pool and rec center.  However, I've been told by Commissioner Fraasch that the municipal staff does not want to fix the pool piecemeal.  The municipal staff gave me a different answer.  It may be their only option now.

The more recent Fraasch/Kluck proposal would not have provided $1 for pool repairs for at least another 12-24 months according to the spreadsheet they provided to me.  Similarly, for those who have suggested that we can't spend money we don't have on things like turf, I hope you understand that the Fraasch/Kluck proposal seeks to violate that very same principle.  We don't have the funds available for their $7 million package either - it would require a bond.  Absent spending the unassigned funds, most of the items in their package will require a bond . . . or further delays, closures, cancelations and repair bills.

Lastly, I have not been associated with anyone in youth sports, the YSA or otherwise who has suggested that we should ignore the pool, the rec center, the ice rink or any other facility for the benefit of fields.  Not one.  Instead, the folks who are in support of a field project, support this initiative as part of a larger Rec proposal, much like the one proposed by Mr. Miller and even Commissioner Fraasch - we just want it to happen sooner than she has proposed. 

I sense the swimmers do too these days . . . .